Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StudentFreelance


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

StudentFreelance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sure if this passes WP:WEBSITE Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it passes WP:WEBCRIT. It does seem to have multiple independent, reliable sources. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:WEBCRIT. -- Klein zach  01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment depends on whether you consider reviews in tech blogs and student run publications  as reliable sources. The other sources in the article are not independent.  Funny  Pika! 07:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, as Pika notes above, the only good source so far is a short review on TechCrunch; the HuffPo article is written by the site's creator, and I don't think student newspapers qualify as WP:RS. That's all the WP:Secondary coverage I can find about the site online, though I might be searching for the wrong terms. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete The tone is promotional, withe such sentences a "connecting talented students to employers in need of specific skills." The "Mission" section is normally a place where we do of necessity allow promotional statements, but the "Innovation" section reveals the promotional nature of the content. Not surprising, because the sources are PR-infliuenced. If it becomes more notable, there will be better sources for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  05:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Only one of the sources listed (The TechCrunch one) can be considered both reliable (I'm not sure what the policy is on student run newspapers but I'm assuming they're not reliable, if they are then I would change to Keep) and independent (some are written by the CEO of the company). My attempts to find more coverage resulted in no additional sources. Transcendence (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Yawn. History2007 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the arguments about WEBCRIT, I do not find the sources compelling enough to establish notability. For example one source is a primary source, the Huffinton Post references are actually the same one duplicated twice (one a search index, and the other the listed article). Some contain trivial mentions. Mkdw talk 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.